PHB Conjure spells vs. Tasha's Summon spells

[HappyDaze]

I've seen Conjure (Animals, Woodland Beings, etc.) spells really damage game balance, particularly when the player takes large numbers of low Challenge creatures. I've heard the arguments for and against these spells, with nothing new being said for awhile.

However, we now have the Summon spells from Tasha's that each summon only 1 semi-customizable, slightly scaling creature. How do you feel about these spells? Would you use them instead of the Conjure spells? How would it impact the game if the Summon spells were allowed and the Conjure spells were banned?

[solidork]

I deliberately choose not to use Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland Beings as a player because I don't like the way that they clog up combat. I'm interested in the Tasha's spells though, considering asking my GM to houserule to let me take a 6th level version of Celestial summoning spell as a mystic arcanum on my Celestial Tomelock.

[MaxWilson]

I've seen Conjure (Animals, Woodland Beings, etc.) spells really damage game balance, particularly when the player takes large numbers of low Challenge creatures. I've heard the arguments for and against these spells, with nothing new being said for awhile.

However, we now have the Summon spells from Tasha's that each summon only 1 semi-customizable, slightly scaling creature. How do you feel about these spells? Would you use them instead of the Conjure spells? How would it impact the game if the Summon spells were allowed and the Conjure spells were banned?

I assume by "Conjure" you mean all the old conjuration spells including also things like "Summon Greater Demon", even though it's named "Summon."

On the one hand, the new summon spells make even the least-efficient uses of the old spells look good (e.g. summoning one CR 2 Giant Constrictor Snake is clearly stronger than Summon Beast Spirit III, although the Beast Spirit has better accuracy especially at high levels; an Annis Hag is clearly better than a Summon Fey Spirit VI).

On the other hand, the new spells are still good spells, they're just not as broken. They are kind of boring though, more disconnected from the game world (a "Bestial Spirit" is far less interesting than an actual crocodile or snake, much less a Barlgura or a Dybbuk or other demon). The new spells are designed to fit into Combat As Sport games, and I prefer Combat As War (https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715/) (see esp. posts #1, #5, #9). But I could play Combat As Sport occasionally, and again, the new spells are good in that context.

On the gripping hand, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. In a game where Conjure Elemental, Danse Macabre, Summon Greater Demon, Conjure Minor Elementals, Conjure Animals, Conjure Fey, etc. did not exist, would I be tempted to learn these new spells? I sure would.

[MrCharlie]

I assume by "Conjure" you mean all the old conjuration spells including also things like "Summon Greater Demon", even though it's named "Summon."

On the one hand, the new summon spells make even the least-efficient uses of the old spells look good (e.g. summoning one CR 2 Giant Constrictor Snake is clearly stronger than Summon Beast Spirit III, although the Beast Spirit has better accuracy especially at high levels; an Annis Hag is clearly better than a Summon Fey Spirit VI).

On the other hand, the new spells are still good spells, they're just not as broken. They are kind of boring though, more disconnected from the game world (a "Bestial Spirit" is far less interesting than an actual crocodile or snake, much less a Barlgura or a Dybbuk or other demon). The new spells are designed to fit into Combat As Sport games, and I prefer Combat As War (https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715/) (see esp. posts #1, #5, #9). But I could play Combat As Sport occasionally, and again, the new spells are good in that context.

On the gripping hand, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. In a game where Conjure Elemental, Danse Macabre, Summon Greater Demon, Conjure Minor Elementals, Conjure Animals, Conjure Fey, etc. did not exist, would I be tempted to learn these new spells? I sure would.
Accuracy is huge though. Summon beast can have an accuracy of twice the giant constructor snake at high level.

In general, a lot of those summon spells were inconvenient. Basically all of them have the caveat that if you drop concentration bad, bad things happen, and if the DM isn't exploiting those bad thing then of course the spells look better. Many of them required components or prep time. Some of them were evil with a capital e.

Also, the the old conjure spells aren't clearly better. Let's look at an annis hag versus conjure fey 6.

Defensively, an Annis hag has 17 AC, 75 HP, CON saves, cold resistance, nonmagical weapon resistance.

Utility can disguise and cast fog cloud.

Offensively, it has three attacks at +8 that deal 15 damage on average, or one attack a +8 that deals 36 and grapples+repeats damage but disables the hags attacks.

A fey spirit at level 6 has, defensively

18 AC, 60 HP, and immunity to charmed.

Utility wise, it can take several bonus actions that teleport it, but it can also make magical darkness in a small area or charm creatures.

Attack wise, it has three attacks at your spell attack (likely to be at least +8, maybe higher) and deals 16 damage on average.

The Annis hag has better saves and resistances, spells, and better HP.

They fey spirit has better damage and mobility, and to hit.

And the fey spirit doesn't come with a free self-anti-charm in the form of concentration.

That's a toss up. It depends on what you want, and how much risk you are willing to take. Hell, in my opinion summon fey is clearly better for the increase to hit bonus by itself-summons missing is common and frustrating.

But the necromancy spells and some of the other summon spells work differently or compare differently to the degree that they are better at certain roles, and in general they win out in two categories-

A. They are better at summoning lots of creatures.

B. They are better at summoning creatures that do things other than beat enemies up-creatures with spells and utility.

For that reason, it's up to the players choice, and is not clearly a matter of one is better than the other. Objectively more creatures is probably better, but not everyone has tolerance for that and circumstances do conspire to work against that.

[Chaos Jackal]

I'll quote myself from another thread on the matter.


Frankly, it's mostly a matter of perspective. There are a few ways to rate these spells.

Is the table tired/annoyed/bothered by the typical summoning spells and their mechanics? Perhaps the DM is being overly harsh when selecting creatures, or the DM/player hasn't done much research on available creatures, or have many sourcebooks to choose from. Or maybe the table gets exasperated with some of the available summons being too strong, or having four or eight creatures added in a combat and slowing it down. In any case, if the table in question has problems with the existing summoning spells, then the Summon X line does a good job of offering clear-cut, easier to handle alternatives with a decent range of options. So as far as "fixing" issues with existing summonings, they do fine.

If, however, there are no issues with the older style of summoning at tables, then the Summon X line ranges from average to weak, depending on the spell and class in question. If DMs generally pick good options for the existing conjurations or, worse yet, the players are allowed to choose, then even without cheese like summoning a swarm of pixies, there's often no comparison.

Where the new Summon line compares favorably or at least breaks even is damage. Pretty much all spells have a high-damage option, and the attacks scaling with spell attack bonus means not only that the damage is high, but consistent too. There are stronger older options, but they are few and often not as accurate when it comes to actually delivering the damage.

Where the new Summon line does OK, depending on what old spell they're compared to, is utility. The summons have various effects ranging from flight speeds to short duration save-or-sucks, and while there's not a truly game-breaking option there, at least there's a good chance the spirit in question can be called upon for more than just some extra damage in a fight. None of the options has innate spellcasting or anything like that though, which makes the Summon spells seem rather lackluster compared to a few of the old conjurations (like Conjure Woodland Beings or Summon Greater Demon).

Where the new Summon line compares really unfavorably is defenses. The spirits in general have low hit points, damage resistances that are often irrelevant, and mediocre armor. Compared to many of the creatures available to summon with the old conjurations, they're extremely squishy.

So, given the above and assuming that the DM in question pick the creatures themselves when applicable, but isn't intentionally trying to screw over the player, then it's class dependent. Does the class have Conjure Animals, Summon Greater Demon, or Conjure Elemental? Then the Summon X spells will generally feel underwhelming.

Look at Conjure Elemental, for example. It's perhaps the easiest spell to rule on when it comes to what is summoned (outside from Summon Greater Demon, of course, which explicitly allows the player to choose), and the four standard elementals come with an array of features that work in all manners of situations. Flight speed, swim speed, earth glide, area control, good damage, and all that in a remarkably more resilient package than any Spirit. Look at the Earth Elemental. It has comparable armor and damage to the strongest spirits, reach, earth glide (which can make for some great scouting or sneaking or some really obnoxious battlefield tricks), and comes with more than twice the hit points alongside physical resistance, meaning it can pretty much tank a big encounter or a number of smaller ones without a care in the world.

Look at Conjure Animals. Similar situation. Probably worse off for damage, but a lot more hit points on the table (assuming the DM doesn't pick something really bad) and the sheer volume of options means that there's almost certainly going to be at least some utility mixed in. Conjure Woodland Beings is kind of similar in these regards, given that many fey have some spellcasting ability, even when they aren't pixies.

Look at Summon Greater Demon. Among the riskiest of the existing options (and with the most annoying material component), but even among low Charisma demons there are some really powerful options, and you get to choose what comes out, so you'll always have what you need at hand. Demons have everything, be it damage, defenses or utility, so outside of the Charisma save they get each turn (which can be greatly mitigated depending on the summon or made irrelevant by throwing something like a barlgura in the middle of an enemy group and letting it go wild) there's really nothing in the Summon spells to make them comparable.

Bottom line, if you're looking to replace the existing conjurations because they don't work at the table, either because of you or others finding them frustrating or the DM giving terrible options, then the new Summon X spells are excellent. They offer a nice and simple way to play summoner that feels adequately strong and can work in a number of situations. But if you have access to the best of the older options and are good with utilizing them, either through DM permission or simply by virtue of the spell itself, then the Summon X spells are a bit underwhelming.

More or less what MaxWilson said. Summon X is good in a vacuum and with no real threat of abuse looming. But as far as power is concerned, they're certainly not as good as the best of the old summoning spells.

[Eldariel]

Accuracy is huge though. Summon beast can have an accuracy of twice the giant constructor snake at high level.

In general, a lot of those summon spells were inconvenient. Basically all of them have the caveat that if you drop concentration bad, bad things happen, and if the DM isn't exploiting those bad thing then of course the spells look better.

I've heard this stated before but what exactly are these bad things people are talking about? For SGD specifically it's more often a boon than a bane since it attacks closest things and if you summon a melee brute it's pretty easy to make it closer to enemies than allies. For most, you just lose the spell. Which sucks but no more than losing anything else. And when you have a meatwall of 8 wolves or whatever between you and the enemy, it's much easier to position so that it's nigh' impossible for enemy melee and hard for enemy ranged types to target you (and you can just drop Prone or take Dodge against ranged attackers anyways leaving only spellcasters and long range monster abilities/superfast flying monsters for you to really worry about).

[MoiMagnus]

The old spells are very DM dependants.

How does the DM chose the creatures that get summoned? Do you chose yourself or do you just choose the CR/number? If you don't choose, are the random creatures summoned necessarily from the Monster Manual? Or do you get most of the time NPCs created on the fly or homebrew creatures, with unpredictable capacities? How do those creatures behave if you lose control? Etc.

Those old spells are like asking for NPCs to help you in a quest. Is it good? Yes. Is it consistent? Not at all. Can it turn so bad you would have preferred not to? Depends on your DM.

[MaxWilson]

The old spells are very DM dependants.

How does the DM chose the creatures that get summoned? Do you chose yourself or do you just choose the CR/number? If you don't choose, are the random creatures summoned necessarily from the Monster Manual? Or do you get most of the time NPCs created on the fly or homebrew creatures, with unpredictable capacities? How do those creatures behave if you lose control? Etc.

Those old spells are like asking for NPCs to help you in a quest. Is it good? Yes. Is it consistent? Not at all. Can it turn so bad you would have preferred not to? Depends on your DM.

They're not all that DM dependent. Some of them, like Conjure Animals, are good no matter what the DM picks unless they deliberately pick useless stuff like CR 0 starfish. Others, like Conjure Elemental, allow you to influence what you get by where you cast them. Some of them, like Summon Greater Demon, allow you to outright choose what you get.

[MaxWilson]

Also, the the old conjure spells aren't clearly better. Let's look at an annis hag versus conjure fey 6.

Defensively, an Annis hag has 17 AC, 75 HP, CON saves, cold resistance, nonmagical weapon resistance.

Utility can disguise and cast fog cloud.

Offensively, it has three attacks at +8 that deal 15 damage on average, or one attack a +8 that deals 36 and grapples+repeats damage but disables the hags attacks.

A fey spirit at level 6 has, defensively

18 AC, 60 HP, and immunity to charmed.

Utility wise, it can take several bonus actions that teleport it, but it can also make magical darkness in a small area or charm creatures.

Attack wise, it has three attacks at your spell attack (likely to be at least +8, maybe higher) and deals 16 damage on average.

The Annis hag has better saves and resistances, spells, and better HP.

They fey spirit has better damage and mobility, and to hit.

And the fey spirit doesn't come with a free self-anti-charm in the form of concentration.

That's a toss up.

It's a tossup only because you're vastly underestimating the Annis Hag's Crushing Hug damage. It's 9d6+5 immediately, plus another 9d6+5 at the start of the Annis Hag's next turn, at which point she can drop the grapple and then do another Crushing Hug if she wants (or hang on for auto-damage while Dodging/Dashing/casting a spell). 18d5+10 (73) plus a grapple is enormously better than Conjure Fey VI's 48ish damage.

And there's potential for her to use Disguise Self to get underestimated and therefore get this damage as an opportunity attack. Or she could get it from a Battlemaster's Commanding Strike, or an Order Cleric.


It depends on what you want, and how much risk you are willing to take. ---, in my opinion summon fey is clearly better for the increase to hit bonus by itself-summons missing is common and frustrating.

Opinion noted. I don't share it. It's easier to give others advantage than it is to increase their actual damage. Accuracy boosts aren't nothing, but unless you're fighting something with AC 25ish like a Tarrasque, the difference between +8 to hit (Annis Hag) and +11ish to hit from a Tier 4 Summon Fey is likely to be only moderate and not enough to overcome the damage disparity--and you may never get to Tier 4 anyway. At the levels people actually play it's more likely to be +8 vs. +9ish, barely noticeable. Even if you do get to Tier 4, at that point you don't win battles through numerical bonuses anyway, you win through logistics and intel, with a smidgen of tactics.


Accuracy is huge though. Summon beast can have an accuracy of twice the giant constructor snake at high level.

For Summon Beast III vs. Conjure Animals (Giant Constrictor Snake), it will be more noticeable (+6 vs. +9ish) but not necessarily important because the snake has so many more HP and a much better condition (restrain on hit). Not that you'll be casting much Summon Beast at high level anyway--you've got better uses for your concentration and unlike Conjure Animals it doesn't upscale well. Conjure Animals V for two CR 2 Giant Constrictor Snakes (120 HP worth of tankiness) might be worth concentration in a lesser battle even in Tier 4, but one Beast Spirit with 45 HP hitting at +11 for d8+9 (13.5) is not.

[MrCharlie]

I've heard this stated before but what exactly are these bad things people are talking about? For SGD specifically it's more often a boon than a bane since it attacks closest things and if you summon a melee brute it's pretty easy to make it closer to enemies than allies. For most, you just lose the spell. Which sucks but no more than losing anything else. And when you have a meatwall of 8 wolves or whatever between you and the enemy, it's much easier to position so that it's nigh' impossible for enemy melee and hard for enemy ranged types to target you (and you can just drop Prone or take Dodge against ranged attackers anyways leaving only spellcasters and long range monster abilities/superfast flying monsters for you to really worry about).
Summon greater demon is an exception-you are given the tools to survive a rampaging demon. The issue there is just that it involves summoning a rampaging demon, and you have to hope that enemies can't exploit that to a greater degree than you can.

The others-like infernal calling, conjure elemental, conjure fey, etc. either outright make the creature hostile or add a generally hostile creature to the field, one which is either intelligent or mobile enough to find and punish you. Or negotiate with your enemies.

Conjure animals and woodland spirits, along with a few others, are more reliable but tend to summon lots of creatures or large creatures, and how useful that is depends a lot on where you are standing. Sure, eight wolves physically stopping enemies from getting to you is great, but you need to be in a situation where eight wolves both actually stops the enemies movement, and where eight wolves can fit-otherwise one large beast with more HP is better. Of course, the summon spells aren't really for stonewalling, so ye olde conjure animals still has a place; but that's my point, one isn't "clearly" better.

Plus they are on only a few spell lists, so availability is another concern. This isn't as trivial as it seems-some classes get boosts to their summons, and if those classes lack conjure animals then we can say that the summon spells are better if a X or Y is casting them.

It's a tossup only because you're vastly underestimating the Annis Hag's Crushing Hug damage. It's 9d6+5 immediately, plus another 9d6+5 at the start of the Annis Hag's next turn, at which point she can drop the grapple and then do another Crushing Hug if she wants (or hang on for auto-damage while Dodging/Dashing/casting a spell). 18d5+10 (73) plus a grapple is enormously better than Conjure Fey VI's 48ish damage.

And there's potential for her to use Disguise Self to get underestimated and therefore get this damage as an opportunity attack. Or she could get it from a Battlemaster's Commanding Strike, or an Order Cleric.

Opinion noted. I don't share it. It's easier to give others advantage than it is to increase their actual damage. Accuracy boosts aren't nothing, but unless you're fighting something with AC 25ish like a Tarrasque, the difference between +8 to hit (Annis Hag) and +11ish to hit from a Tier 4 Summon Fey is likely to be only moderate and not enough to overcome the damage disparity--and you may never get to Tier 4 anyway. At the levels people actually play it's more likely to be +8 vs. +9ish, barely noticeable. Even if you do get to Tier 4, at that point you don't win battles through numerical bonuses anyway, you win through logistics and intel, with a smidgen of tactics.

For Summon Beast III vs. Conjure Animals (Giant Constrictor Snake), it will be more noticeable (+6 vs. +9ish) but not necessarily important because the snake has so many more HP and a much better condition (restrain on hit). Not that you'll be casting much Summon Beast at high level anyway--you've got better uses for your concentration and unlike Conjure Animals it doesn't upscale well. Conjure Animals V for two CR 2 Giant Constrictor Snakes (120 HP worth of tankiness) might be worth concentration in a lesser battle even in Tier 4, but one Beast Spirit with 45 HP hitting at +11 for d8+9 (13.5) is not.
I'd argue, and have before, that the crushing hug should disable attacks period if you deal damage that turn. I understand why the text doesn't require this and why the tactic works RAW, but it's such an overblown amount of damage and basically makes the text irrelevant if you can drop if-hell, you can drop it and pick them back up in the same turn-that it's pure exploit.

Using it on a reaction, either from disguised Annis Hags or synergy with friends, is just good tactics though, which is where the conjure spells are pretty clearly better. Planning, synergy, and utility. Plus HP and stonewalling.

That said, the real issue is that if you are using the conjure spells to do stuff like double dip on annis hag damage, no DM worth their salt is going to let you summon those creatures. Generally, all of them are dependent on the DM, to a greater or lesser degree-only the ones which work entirely differently than the new summons, like the create undead spells, are exempt from that caveat, but they are army creators not battle summons.

What is and isn't worth concentrating on depends on the situation. If the giant constrictor snakes don't fit, or if your flying, then your suddenly dealing with a much more constrained summoning list, and the creatures aren't as good. In general you are assuming you can pick the best options from the summon lists, which only true with a very favorable DM or an inexperienced one, and in certain environmental conditions. The summon spells as a whole apply in virtually every situation, and you can generally find one for any context.

Further, when you compare conjure animals 5 you are comparing incomparable spells for two reasons. The first is that summon beast, even when upcast to level 5, is still originally a level 2 spell. Conjure animals started off higher, and while it scales better the comparison isn't equivalent. The second is that the summon spells spike on even levels, while conjure animals spikes on odd ones. You're always going to get an unfavorable comparison.

And finally, the assumptions you are making with regards to tier 4 content are simply not defensible, and I feel no need to accept them as a framework for this discussion.

[Nhym]

I'll post what I wrote on another thread, but I really hate when people say Conjure Animals and Woodland beings clog up combat. If it's causing a problem, it's the player, not the spell. It's like giving a gun to a child: a lot of power if the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it. An experienced Shepherd Druid, for example: can take turns with 8 summons in less time than a player who isn't prepared for their turn, knows when it's appropriate to summon 2 Brown Bears over 8 Pixies and knows exactly what they intend to do on their turn before their turn starts. If you have a problem with Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland beings, then you shouldn't be using it. Fight me.

Now for my post on another thread
For Shepherd druids, the Summon X spells are flat worse than their normal summon spells. The only thing that they have going for them is that Summon Beast comes online 2 levels before Conjure Animals. Summon Fey doesn't have the utility that Conjure Woodland Beings is used for and even the two CR 1 option of Conjure Animals is stronger than Summon Beast of the same level. That's not even to mention the Mighty Summoner HP doesn't work with the Summon X spells.

The point of spells like Conjure Animals is the ability to find the right tool for the right job. Summon beast is like crappy amalgamation of every feature. For example considering a 3rd level spell slot:

Want a tanky summon? Summon Beast has an AC of 14 and HP of 25. Dire Wolves have an AC of 14 and 47 health with mighty summoner.... and you get two of them.
Want a damage summon? Summon Beast makes one attack, lets be generous and say a +5 to hit, and does 1d8+7 damage which averages to 12 pierce damage. Brown Bears have a +6 to hit, multiattack, and average 8 pierce and 11 slashing damage with their attacks.... and you get two of them too.
Need a scout? Giant Owls have Flyby and twice as good darkvision and you can have 8 of them, or Giant Eagles fly faster and you can have 2 of them.
Need a mount? All horses are faster and you can have multiples.

Yes the single Bestial Spirit has better all-around stats than any single creature, but that's not what Conjure X are used for. You pick the best summon for the situation; that's what makes Shepherds so fun since they can constantly adapt and change to the environment. And before you say it, yes the DM is suppose to choose the summon, but in practice you can certainly suggest summons and I have never seen a DM bar anything other than Pixies if the player can handle their summons efficiently.

Also anyone interested in Shepherd druids, here's my guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXgYqPxkEHaCisQ0tteFF-KtsmfJxkOQojeWwHf22n4/edit?usp=sharing


Edit: Just wanted to add that I agree with the stuff that MaxWilson said, as I do in most cases with him. Regarding this in particular, I prefer to take a more aggressive position since Shepherd Druids are dear to me, so Conjure spells are dear to me.

[sithlordnergal]

Accuracy is huge though. Summon beast can have an accuracy of twice the giant constructor snake at high level.


I mean...its decent at being better than a single Giant Constrictor Snake...but why would you just be summoning a single Giant Constrictor Snake in the first place? Provided I'm reading it right, a Summon Beast at 3rd level would have 13 AC, 35 HP, 1 attack, and deals 1d8+7 damage. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong of course.

That...is weaker then a Constrictor Snake. It deals less damage and has less HP then said Constrictor Snake, and lets be honest just summoning a single CR 2 beast is the worst way to use Conjure Animals. Its real strength come when you summon 8 cr 1/4 beasts. At which point the single summoned beast can't compare at all.

[Bilbron]

I mean...its decent at being better than a single Giant Constrictor Snake...but why would you just be summoning a single Giant Constrictor Snake in the first place? Provided I'm reading it right, a Summon Beast at 3rd level would have 13 AC, 35 HP, 1 attack, and deals 1d8+7 damage. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong of course.

That...is weaker then a Constrictor Snake. It deals less damage and has less HP then said Constrictor Snake, and lets be honest just summoning a single CR 2 beast is the worst way to use Conjure Animals. Its real strength come when you summon 8 cr 1/4 beasts. At which point the single summoned beast can't compare at all.

These probably aren't all that viable with Druids, as per the preceding analyses. But they are tangentially better than the Wizard options in that 1. they are all 1-action casts, 2. you pick the summon, and 3. they will be under your control for the full hour with no potential for loss of control. Tough to find all 3 in the wizard suite.

I find Summon Aberration is pretty solid because both the Slaad (regen) and Beholder (flying ranged) have great chances of sticking around for the full hour.

Also, there are DM concerns. My DM introduces alignment and game concerns for using Summon Greater Demon and the like, ostensibly for RP reasons but I'm guessing because SGD is overpowered when you know how to use it and it's annoying to adjudicate in battle. Regardless, the new spells are much better for me in that regard. I can see plenty of DMs just straight banning the old spells and replacing with the Tasha's versions.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm going to prefer Tasha's summons for simplifying the process and making a wizard 'summoner' work, though I understand the general strength of the old spells and won't be banning them. I know some players that are going to use the new ones just to eat up less time, and some that will use the old ones because of the potential power they can bring. And then the occasional weirdo that uses both.

If they could use a bit of a buff, I'd prefer to make magic items with that in mind. Maybe a whip that empowers the new summon spells, for my Final Fantasy fans.

[stoutstien]

I think it hard to compare old vs new in broad strokes. For clerics, paladin, and artificer being able to prepare a spell that snags a beefy ally with additional utility is welcomed.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think it hard to compare old vs new in broad strokes. For clerics, paladin, and artificer being able to prepare a spell that snags a beefy ally with additional utility is welcomed.

This, too. Having summons is infinitely more desirable than not having summons!

[RifleAvenger]

Summon Beast being a 2nd level spell means that Shepherd Druid gets to start doing its THING two level earlier, which is appreciated.

The 'Conjure' spells, regardless of name, are generally going to be more powerful. A spell that targets any creature of a valid type grows in hypothetical utility with every new monster of that type printed.

However, I can see the new summons having their own perks. Probably among the easiest things in the game to Planar Binding (if among the least rewarding), since they're innately obedient to the summoner w/o opposed checks. On a prepared caster, who can get both type of spells with no issues, I'd likely pick up at least some of the Tasha's Summon line. On a spells known caster with access to both, I'm sticking with the 'conjure' types unless the class in question has no viable options to hold control (or relinquish it at minimal risk).

[werescythe]

Now one of the things I have read here is that the summon spells in Tasha's are "boring." I would argue that it really depends on both the summoner and the DM.

Perhaps the Undead Spirit, I summoned with Summon Undead is the Ghost of Hera Yelth, a dwarven bard who died during a bar brawl when she accidentally choked on a chicken leg. Give the thing you're summoning a backstory and you will feel more invested in it.

Also remember that power doesn't always equal fun.

[MaxWilson]

This, too. Having summons is infinitely more desirable than not having summons!

Although note: you don't automatically get access to this feature.


Now one of the things I have read here is that the summon spells in Tasha's are "boring." I would argue that it really depends on both the summoner and the DM.

Perhaps the Undead Spirit, I summoned with Summon Undead is the Ghost of Hera Yelth, a dwarven bard who died during a bar brawl when she accidentally choked on a chicken leg. Give the thing you're summoning a backstory and you will feel more invested in it.

You can give all of your pieces in checkers a backstory too. That doesn't make the backstory true or consequential. It's game mechanics influencing the narrative without any way for the narrative to influence the mechanics, unlike, say, Conjure Animals where conjuring a Giant Elk instead of a Polar Bear means it's faster. It doesn't just look like a Giant Elk, it behaves like a Giant Elk. It is in this sense that the Tasha's spells are more boring: they're more decoupled from the actual game world and the narrative.

[HappyDaze]

Also remember that power doesn't always equal fun.
...but a lack of power will almost never equal fun.

[MaxWilson]

These probably aren't all that viable with Druids, as per the preceding analyses. But they are tangentially better than the Wizard options in that 1. they are all 1-action casts, 2. you pick the summon, and 3. they will be under your control for the full hour with no potential for loss of control. Tough to find all 3 in the wizard suite.

Well, there's Danse Macabre. Five undead attacks per round is better than two despite the small potential loss of accuracy (+9 max vs. +11ish max), and especially for Necromancers, the total HP is much better. The only reason Danse Macabre isn't more popular is... Animate Dead is even better.


I find Summon Aberration is pretty solid because both the Slaad (regen) and Beholder (flying ranged) have great chances of sticking around for the full hour.

It's not terrible, certainly, although I question why sticking around for a full hour is important when you can't spare 1 minute to Conjure an Elemental in the first place. I mean, I'm certainly not going to COMPLAIN if it lasts a full hour because you might bump into more enemies especially if dungeon crawling, but instant cast and hour-long dungeon crawl against easy enemies (so that 5 HP regen on an AC 15ish 40ish HP chassis makes a difference, vs. getting murdered in one or two rounds) seem like disjoint scenarios. I'd appreciate the regen more if it was on a PC-class chassis, like AC 19-21 and 70-100 HP plus the ability to impose disadvantage at least some of the time.


Also, there are DM concerns. My DM introduces alignment and game concerns for using Summon Greater Demon and the like, ostensibly for RP reasons but I'm guessing because SGD is overpowered when you know how to use it and it's annoying to adjudicate in battle. Regardless, the new spells are much better for me in that regard. I can see plenty of DMs just straight banning the old spells and replacing with the Tasha's versions.

I would expect DMs who impose consequences for summoning demons to probably also impose consequences for summoning aberrations, shadowspawn, fiends, undead, etc. with the new spells.

[ATHATH]

On a spells known caster with access to both, I'm sticking with the 'conjure' types unless the class in question has no viable options to hold control (or relinquish it at minimal risk).
Remember that casting a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction takes up your concentration, so you'll need a spellcasting buddy, a ring of spell storing, a glyph of warding, or the like to actually cast Planar Binding on a created summoned by a spell that requires concentration.

[Kane0]

I’ve been using this spell for a while so the Tashas ones don’t bother me:

Summon Monster
2nd-level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 10 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to one minute

You call forth a single Monstrosity type creature of CR 1/2 or lower, appearing in a space you can see within range. Roll initiative for the creature, which has its own turns. When you summon it and on each of your turns you can issue a verbal command to it (requiring no action on your part), telling it what to do on its next turn. If you issue no command it spends its turn attacking any creature that has attacked it.
If you stop concentrating on this spell before it reaches its full duration the summoned creature disappears immediately.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the CR of the creature you can summon increases by 1 for each slot level above 2nd.

[Bilbron]

Well, there's Danse Macabre. Five undead attacks per round is better than two despite the small potential loss of accuracy (+9 max vs. +11ish max), and especially for Necromancers, the total HP is much better. The only reason Danse Macabre isn't more popular is... Animate Dead is even better.

It's not terrible, certainly, although I question why sticking around for a full hour is important when you can't spare 1 minute to Conjure an Elemental in the first place. I mean, I'm certainly not going to COMPLAIN if it lasts a full hour because you might bump into more enemies especially if dungeon crawling, but instant cast and hour-long dungeon crawl against easy enemies (so that 5 HP regen on an AC 15ish 40ish HP chassis makes a difference, vs. getting murdered in one or two rounds) seem like disjoint scenarios. I'd appreciate the regen more if it was on a PC-class chassis, like AC 19-21 and 70-100 HP plus the ability to impose disadvantage at least some of the time.

I would expect DMs who impose consequences for summoning demons to probably also impose consequences for summoning aberrations, shadowspawn, fiends, undead, etc. with the new spells.

Sure, though I personally prefer the Artificer's equivalent in Tiny Servant. I actually roll with 10x of those because I love that I can have them precast with the 8 hour duration and simply direct them with readied action triggers or bonus actions on round 1 without any loss of action economy. Add in my combat Summon or my concentration spell (Sleet Storm or Slow) and I have a powerful offensive presence in the battle even after I climb into my Rope Trick on Round 2.

Because I'm trying to eliminate reduncancy from my spell preps, so as to maximize my total impact in all scenarios. Sure, I could take Conjure Elemental and it's great when I have time to cast it. But it's useless to me in a travel encounter where I don't have it up, because it's not a combat cast. So if I reliably want a Summon in combat (and I do), then I have to memorize a SECOND Summon spell. I consider this inefficient. What I want is a combat cast that ALSO can reliably last the 1-hour duration, so I only need to prep one Summon and have room for the likes of Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum or other utility spell. Which the new Summons provide.

The problem in my campaign is specifically with Fiendish servants... the others are fair game.

[RifleAvenger]

Remember that casting a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction takes up your concentration, so you'll need a spellcasting buddy, a ring of spell storing, a glyph of warding, or the like to actually cast Planar Binding on a created summoned by a spell that requires concentration. Given how much of a mess the rules for binding summons are to be to begin with, what with the whole "spell lasts an hour, casting binding takes exactly an hour, so the summon vanishes just before binding completes" on top of what you mentioned? Either players are going to have the jenga pieces in place to enable the strategy to work at all, or the table is looser on rules that make binding a RAW pain (I'll admit my group does the latter, which is why I forgot the detail you brought up).

For either group, the new summons remove the risk that the summon breaks free inherent to some of the other spells, without needing to spend another slot and logistical issues getting a 1-minute casting time Magic Circle up. This is generally a minor issue for groups that have the jenga blocks in place to bind by strict RAW, I'll admit.

A bit off-topic, but it really seems to me that the binding rules are intentionally fiddly so GMs who don't want players binding summons can easily make it prohibitively difficult for PCs. Though the more mature option, in my opinion, would be to just ask players not to play that kind of character.

[MaxWilson]

what with the whole "spell lasts an hour, casting binding takes exactly an hour, so the summon vanishes just before binding completes"

Any DM who tracks spell durations down to the microsecond like this is borrowing trouble. The spell lasts just long enough to finish casting Planar Binding if you don't delay. It's similar to how Blade Ward (duration 1 round) lasts just long enough to let you cast another spell--it doesn't vanish microseconds before you finish the other spell.

[MrCharlie]

I mean...its decent at being better than a single Giant Constrictor Snake...but why would you just be summoning a single Giant Constrictor Snake in the first place? Provided I'm reading it right, a Summon Beast at 3rd level would have 13 AC, 35 HP, 1 attack, and deals 1d8+7 damage. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong of course.

That...is weaker then a Constrictor Snake. It deals less damage and has less HP then said Constrictor Snake, and lets be honest just summoning a single CR 2 beast is the worst way to use Conjure Animals. Its real strength come when you summon 8 cr 1/4 beasts. At which point the single summoned beast can't compare at all.
It has either significantly more mobility than the snake, or has significantly more accuracy due to advantage+higher base hit, if the caster is keeping up their casting stat.

Also, the summon spells want to be cast on even levels. If cast at level 4, it does more damage. If cast at level 2, conjure does not exist. This makes the spells hard to compare unless they summon a single creature-and with certain exceptions where a printed creature is far above it's printed CR, the summon spells generally compared to these favorably. Those exceptions tend to be rare enough that the DM is unlikely to even own the book, let alone give you the conjured creature if you ask to summon it.

Eight summons beasts also can't always be used effectively. Sometimes enemies deal small AOE damage effects that would kill them, sometimes the environment does that, sometimes you just don't have space. I find that about half of all fights are in cramped interior spaces, particularly if you try to bring in a bunch of medium creatures into them, and that once a fight becomes cramped it stays that way for the rest of the combat-a horrific, awful experience as either a player or DM. Maybe the players ultimately win, but no amount of "get good" solves the issues with a 5 foot corridor housing eight wolves in a line.

In general, the conjure spells either exploit a specific overpowered conjure or rely on spamming out creatures. Both of these are unreliable. Summoning one strong creature isn't better, but is more reliable, and due to how the summon spells work they are virtually never useless.

Now, if you want an example where the conjure spells are clearly better, my favorite overpowered conjure is not the Annis Hag, which requires exploiting the timing of actions and still isn't incredible, but the Korred. The Korred is a CR 7 fey. In addition to being a solid fighter with high damage attacks and a bonus action disable, which is small enough to basically never have issues with size, the Korred can also cast two good spells-ottos dance, and summon elemental to summon a CR 6 Galeb Duhr, which can also animate a boulder. So one conjure fey cast at level 7 gives you three creatures, all of which are good fighters. Obviously none of the summon spells even vaguely compare to this, not could they. In general though, the summon line is better than comparable beatstick conjure targets, pound for pound. And most of the spells which make better creatures run into risks where concentration becomes vital.

[JackPhoenix]

Any DM who tracks spell durations down to the microsecond like this is borrowing trouble. The spell lasts just long enough to finish casting Planar Binding if you don't delay. It's similar to how Blade Ward (duration 1 round) lasts just long enough to let you cast another spell--it doesn't vanish microseconds before you finish the other spell.

Blade Ward explicitly lasts until the end of your next turn. The conjured elemental disappears a hour after you've summoned it, not "at the end of your turn after a hour has passed".

The spell last just long enough to end just before you finish casting Planar Binding. It's similar to how Shield (duration 1 round) lasts just long enough to end before you'll be able to cast another spell.

[MaxWilson]

Also, the summon spells want to be cast on even levels. If cast at level 4, it does more damage. If cast at level 2, conjure does not exist. This makes the spells hard to compare unless they summon a single creature-and with certain exceptions where a printed creature is far above it's printed CR, the summon spells generally compared to these favorably. Those exceptions tend to be rare enough that the DM is unlikely to even own the book, let alone give you the conjured creature if you ask to summon it.

Since when do DMs not own the MM? An Earth Elemental, for example, far outclasses a Tasha's summon in durability, mobility, and utility (Tremorense) while keeping up in damage and being better at kiting (reach + Earth Glide).

And again, even a CR 2 Giant Constrictor Snake outclasses a Summon Beast. If you upcast to level 4, you're spending a more expensive slot to do slightly more damage and slightly more accuracy (likely +7ish vs. +6) but the new beast has no constricting so it's a worse tank (no built-in Sentinel-like effect) and doesn't grant advantage to allies, and the snake also has 50% more HP. And this is a relatively bad way to use Conjure Animals.

[FabulousFizban]

The conjure spells and the summon spells are two different tools for two different types of play. Comparing them is rather apples and oranges. Conjure spells are for minionmancy. It's that simple. This is a style of play that can cause problems if used by indecisive or inexperienced players. Minionmancy should really only be done by experienced players who know how to efficiently manage their resources in combat - in other words, those who know what they want to do on their turn and do it quickly. Otherwise it bogs the game down.

The summon spells on the other hand, are for playing a Pokémon trainer. I choose you! Tricksy Fey Spirit.

[MaxWilson]

The conjure spells and the summon spells are two different tools for two different types of play. Comparing them is rather apples and oranges. Conjure spells are for minionmancy. It's that simple. This is a style of play that can cause problems if used by indecisive or inexperienced players. Minionmancy should really only be done by experienced players who know how to efficiently manage their resources in combat - in other words, those who know what they want to do on their turn and do it quickly. Otherwise it bogs the game down.

The summon spells on the other hand, are for playing a Pokémon trainer. I choose you! Tricksy Fey Spirit.

Conjure Elemental and Summon Greater Demon are 1-creature summons, just like the Tasha's summon spells. They just happen to be a lot more varied and generally stronger creatures. (For comparison, the Tasha's summon spells give you the equivalent of a CR 3ish creature when cast at 4th level, if you do the CR math; Summon Greater Demon gives you your choice of any demon up to CR 5, but your control is more tenuous. You have to upcast the Tasha's spells to ~9th level to get a CR 5ish creature out of them.)

[MrCharlie]

Since when do DMs not own the MM? An Earth Elemental, for example, far outclasses a Tasha's summon in durability, mobility, and utility (Tremorense) while keeping up in damage and being better at kiting (reach + Earth Glide).

And again, even a CR 2 Giant Constrictor Snake outclasses a Summon Beast. If you upcast to level 4, you're not spending a more expensive slot to do slightly more damage and slightly more accuracy (likely +7ish vs. +6) but the new beast has no constricting so it's a worse tank (no built-in Sentinel-like effect) and doesn't grant advantage to allies, and the snake also has 50% more HP. And this is a relatively bad way to use Conjure Animals.
Again, CR 5 versus a bad level for the spell-you don't cast them on odd levels unless you have to. Further, if you drop concentration on conjure elemental, it attacks you, while summon elemental lasts a shorter time but can't be turned against you.

The one area where the summon spells lose is HP. The one area they win is they don't get turned against you on a failed concentration save, among other issues.

Most of the "good" uses for conjure animals assume you have sufficient room to summon your horde of animals, which again, isn't always true.

That's also a relatively bad way to use the summon spells-you should cast a summon spell of the appropriate level instead, such as summon construct. But more generally, the conjure spell will always be better on odd levels by its nature. The summon spell may or may not be stronger on an even level, but the conjure spells often have severe negatives.

[MrCharlie]

Conjure Elemental and Summon Greater Demon are 1-creature summons, just like the Tasha's summon spells. They just happen to be a lot more varied and generally stronger creatures. (For comparison, the Tasha's summon spells give you the equivalent of a CR 3ish creature when cast at 4th level, if you do the CR math; Summon Greater Demon gives you your choice of any demon up to CR 5, but your control is more tenuous. You have to upcast the Tasha's spells to ~9th level to get a CR 5ish creature out of them.)
According to hit points and utility, not damage. It depends on the use.